Tuesday, May 24, 2016 • Morning Edition • "Good enough for government work!"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!


Ender's Game Fans Excited to Indirectly Support Homophobia and Bigotry This Friday

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

The Old Doctor

Postby The Old Doctor » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:19 am

If the movie does well... does this mean the homophobes are winning? Or that people can separate the politics of an asshat from his work?
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:23 am

Cat-Scratch wrote:If the movie does well... does this mean the homophobes are winning? Or that people can separate the politics of an asshat from his work?


It means people can rationalize it to themselves by saying that the politics are separate from the work. :P
User avatar

StarCruncher

Outhouse Drafter

Postby StarCruncher » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:23 am

Cat-Scratch wrote:Or that people can separate the politics of an asshat from his work?
Apparently not. I like Rosemary's Baby, so now I need to go diddle some underage chick.

The Old Doctor

Postby The Old Doctor » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:26 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
It means people can rationalize it to themselves by saying that the politics are separate from the work. :P


Being rational is always the escape hatch, isn't it? :smt011
User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:27 am

It's a Lions Gate production, same company that made The Hunger Games.

I've read that the budget was slightly in excess of $100 million which I could see it making a small profit.

Hab
User avatar

StarCruncher

Outhouse Drafter

Postby StarCruncher » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:29 am

The trailer went full-on 1970s in their approach. There's no mystery as to whether it's a 'game' or not and we see him sacrifice the entire fleet to blow up the Formic homeworld. They must have figured everyone has read the book already?

The Old Doctor

Postby The Old Doctor » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:30 am

outsider wrote:Apparently not. I like Rosemary's Baby, so now I need to go diddle some underage chick.


I don't like that movie, but I did and do like Chinatown and Ghost Writer.

Chinatown makes me want an orange while Ghost Writer makes me want to go drive a BMW suv and diddle a middle-aged English woman... and Kim Cattrall.

The Old Doctor

Postby The Old Doctor » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:32 am

outsider wrote:The trailer went full-on 1970s in their approach. There's no mystery as to whether it's a 'game' or not and we see him sacrifice the entire fleet to blow up the Formic homeworld. They must have figured everyone has read the book already?


"It's all about the journey, not the destination."

I'll wait for the screams of child on child violence and bullying in the film...
User avatar

StarCruncher

Outhouse Drafter

Postby StarCruncher » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:33 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
It means people can rationalize it to themselves by saying that the politics are separate from the work. :P

Off-topic/tangential question: when did 'rationalize' develop a negative connotation? I've always equated 'rational' with knowledgeable, conscious, responsible types; however, in these types of discussions (typically those involving differences of socio-moral opinion), when the term 'rationalize' typically takes on a more negative slant, as if one isn't taking an enlightened path.

The Old Doctor

Postby The Old Doctor » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:34 am

outsider wrote:Off-topic/tangential question: when did 'rationalize' develop a negative connotation? I've always equated 'rational' with knowledgeable, conscious, responsible types; however, in these types of discussions (typically those involving differences of socio-moral opinion), when the term 'rationalize' typically takes on a more negative slant, as if one isn't taking an enlightened path.



You missed the :P meaning he was being Jude... aka sarcastic.
User avatar

StarCruncher

Outhouse Drafter

Postby StarCruncher » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:37 am

Cat-Scratch wrote:
"It's all about the journey, not the destination."

I'll wait for the screams of child on child violence and bullying in the film...
My kids really want to see Ender's Game because it has kids doing the fighting, spaceships and cool explosions.
I told them to STFU, that they were supporting homophobia.
And then my wife saw that it was PG-13 and told me I couldn't take them. :x :lol:
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:38 am

outsider wrote:Off-topic/tangential question: when did 'rationalize' develop a negative connotation? I've always equated 'rational' with knowledgeable, conscious, responsible types; however, in these types of discussions (typically those involving differences of socio-moral opinion), when the term 'rationalize' typically takes on a more negative slant, as if one isn't taking an enlightened path.


It's an NA/AA thing. Addicts rationalize their drug use, I.E. "It puts me in a better mood so I don't beat my wife." :P
User avatar

StarCruncher

Outhouse Drafter

Postby StarCruncher » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:39 am

Cat-Scratch wrote:

You missed the :P meaning he was being Jude... aka sarcastic.
Oh, I know, ThanosCo...JUDE is always non-serious (except about dodgeball... that's always SRS), but I have noticed that term show up in that context, typically as a passive guilt-trip method.
Oh, if you want *rationalize* it, then go right ahead....
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:41 am

outsider wrote:Oh, I know, ThanosCo...JUDE is always non-serious (except about dodgeball... that's always SRS), but I have noticed that term show up in that context, typically as a passive guilt-trip method.
Oh, if you want *rationalize* it, then go right ahead....


NA is where I first heard it used that way, and what I was thinking of when I wrote this article. I'm not ThanosCopter though (this article is written by me, but lists ThanosCopter Newswire as the source). :P
User avatar

Strict31

Rain Partier

Postby Strict31 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:42 am

outsider wrote:Off-topic/tangential question: when did 'rationalize' develop a negative connotation? I've always equated 'rational' with knowledgeable, conscious, responsible types; however, in these types of discussions (typically those involving differences of socio-moral opinion), when the term 'rationalize' typically takes on a more negative slant, as if one isn't taking an enlightened path.

"Rationalize" doesn't have a negative connotation...not inherently, but in standard use, it is equated usually with an attempt to explain away uncomfortable or inconvenient details in order to arrive at a conclusion.

Like redefining torture as "enhanced interrogation techniques". Or fucking an ugly chick just so you can put your dick into something that's alive.

We rationalize all the time here on the OH in any number of political threads, so I'm sure you've seen it implemented in the fashion Jude means.

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BarrySagittarius, Belle-Tain Summer, Supersoldier Washout and 94 guests